One aspect that could stimulate cycling is to improve the link train-bike. In Holland in every main train station it is possible to hire a bike. In every train it is possible to take your bike for a small fee, if your bike is fold-able, you do not have to pay.

I've been an urban bike commuter for about 7 years. I've never had very far to go to work, and there are very few downsides. Biking is free, and even if you can do it a few days a week it saves a ton on gas or public transportation fares. It's a good way to get extra exercise if you don't have time to get to the gym--you have to get to work anyway, why not use your own body power? I also enjoy getting outdoors a bit before office imprisonment, and the exercise and level of mental stimulation provided by navigating traffic just gets you ready to work.

I might add that I'm a female in my mid-30s and have a professional job. One thing I have noticed is that a lot of people, especially professional women, think biking to work is impossible. As noted, safety is an issue. A lot of friends and coworkers have said to me, "I can't believe you bike in the city, I would be scared to death." And yes, it can be dangerous. But a lot of things we don't think twice about can be much more so. I am not a daredevil--anyone who has ever been skiing with me can attest to that. Biking in the city requires you to anticipate and stay focused at all times, and I think if you do that, you'll be ok. It's also REALLY important to understand bicycle safety BEFORE you try bike commuting. It's not as simple as you think. There are a lot of nuances and what you do in a particular situation is not always intutive at first. And practice makes perfect. The more you do it, the more confident you become, and the more confident you become, the more you convey that confidence to drivers, and the more safe it becomes. Honestly I feel much less safe on the major bikeways--with the phone and ipod distracted pedestrians, small children, dogs, and inexperienced bikers--than I do on the congested city streets.

Another big obstacle is maintaining professional appearance while biking to work. It can be difficult for women. I've been lucky enough to work in pretty casual offices, but I look pretty gross when I get to work. I've come to accept that I will have helmet hair for the rest of the day and my clothes will be a bit wrinkled. But it's simple, if I have an important meeting or something I have to look nice for, I just don't bike that day. It doesn't mean I can NEVER bike. A lot of people are worried about smelling bad, but as a crazy sweater, I can tell you, you will not smell bad if you take the proper precautions. Get to work 10 minutes early or whatever you have to do to cool down a bit before getting changed and wait until you've stopped sweating to do so. Keep a small towel in the office. When you get changed, wipe down completely and change EVERYTHING, including underwear, socks, whatever, and apply a new layer of deorderant. It's not difficult--if you do all this you won't smell. I carry my clothes with me every day in my paniers, but I know some people who drive to work on Monday and drop off their clothes or food or whatever they need to carry for the week. You just need a system that works for you. And once you get used to it, it's really not as much of as hassel as it might sound.

I've just recently started work outside the city and I can't bike to work as often as I used to for some logistical reasons. It's really a sad loss to me. I try to bike at least 2 days per week now, but even that saves me a lot of gas money even with my short commute. If anyone reading this thinks there are too many inconveniences to bike commute, I would say just try it once and I bet you will never want to go back.

Seattle is putting in "bike lanes" by painting off a portion of the car lanes, between the car lane and parked cars. This bit of paint does not provide the amount of safety from cars that many cyclists seem to think it does.

The South Lake Union Trolley (note initials) has tracks that nobody realized would be dangerous for cyclists until the first accidents caused by bike tires vs tracks. The tracks aren't going anywhere soon, so the ambulences have a new source of customers.

And the way some bikers flout traffic laws and reason!! I was riding on the bus with a bus-driver friend driving, and twice in 3 weeks (once in the University District, once on the east edge of downtown), a biker overtook him on the left, and then cut in front of him and did a right-angle turn to be on the curbside lane - cut in front of a moving bus. Just after the 2nd time, my friend went in for the brief physical required to drive a commercial vehicle (has to be renewed at intervals) and had blood pressure almost twice "normal" - he is no longer driving commercial vehicles. It's a miracle those cutoffs by bikers didn't cause a heart attack or stroke.

It can be expected that some individuals will ride their bicycles in an aggressive manner just as some car drivers operate their vehicles in an aggressive manner. We should not allow these outliers to become a reason not to further develop bicycling infrastructure.

Many bicyclists ride in an unsafe manner--but not all of us do. Also, a major problem is education of drivers. A lot of drivers do not understand how bicyclists--properly--behave. Proper bicycling safety is mostly the same as motor vehical laws, but not entirely. Current traffic laws do not address bicyclists, and there are a few situations where following them to the T on a bike is not bike safety protocol. I think if the laws were adjusted and drivers are made aware, it becomes much safer for everyone. Also drivers also just don't expect bicyclists to do anything, even when it's perfectly normal, safe, and following traffic laws. For example, I cannot tell you how many times I am honked at for making a proper left turn. I wait for a safe opportunity and merge to the left, signaling the whole time. I've been sworn at for that! Bicyclists are allowed to make lefthand turns, for anyone out there who may not be aware of that!

Buses are slower than bikes 97% of the time. What you thought was inches to spare probably seemed like a gaping hole in traffic to the cyclists. I pass buses all the time and oblige the drivers to "escort" me by shielding me from the traffic behind me. They tolerate it because they know that I am moving at a much faster average speed than them and will soon leave them in my dust.

It really is a spectacular trend. Minneapolis has become incredibly bike friendly. 4 years ago I started riding my bike again. I had not ridden in 15 years. Now I commute 15 miles to work a couple of times a week, 12 of which are on dedicated bike trails. I never would have started without the bike infrastructure investment the city has made.

There's a sales tax (in states which have sales taxes). And bicycles cause far less wear and tear on the road than cars, so trading car trips for bicycle trips saves municipalities money, since our gas taxes do not cover the cost of road maintenance (otherwise our roads would be in far better shape than they are).

Should there be a specific tax on bicycles above and beyond sales tax, income tax, property tax, etc.?

Normally that would be reserved for something that was provided for at great public expense (the extra tax on gasoline to fund the interstate highway system, for example) or was of obvious detriment to people's health (cigarette smoking), etc.

I do not think the tax on gasoline is entirely used to fund highways/roads and the huge settlement from tobacco companies to assist hospitals. With that said, in my town there is one bike lane that is about a mile long. There is speculation it was built to qualify for federal funds and/or advertise as a bike friendly town.

Safety? According to the Department of Transportation statistics (guesses), bicycles accounted for 2% of highway fatalities last year, yet they have no idea how many miles are ridden. Most agree bicycles are less than 1% of traffic. I'll bet it isn’t even 1 tenth of a percent. How many cars did you see on the highway today? How many bicycles? How many bikes were going more than a mile? The Feds admit that the average usage for all bicycles is less than 10 miles per month, and that 9% of bicyclists crash or fall each year. That is one accident every 1200 miles! Is this safe? Can you imagine if someone got hurt in your car every month? More contingency fees, higher insurance, maybe it’s a conspiracy. Bicycle fatalities are kept in a separate database and can’t be correlated to other accidents.

Do you or have you ever tried riding a bicycle to the store or work? I highly doubt it governing the ignorance of your statement. I ride twenty five miles to work Mon through Fri. If I crash my bike on my own accord or even collide with another cyclist, I WILL NOT DIE. If I do die riding my bike to work, and be part of the 2% guesswork, it WILL BE BY AN IDIOT DRIVING A CAR. Cars are the problem, and Americans unwillingness to accept the the problems inherited from car culture. Your BS about bike accidents per miles is so far out of touch. I have over 6,000 miles logged on Strava for this year so far. Last year I had a total of over 7,000 miles. I ride across town at rush during the week and up and down mountains on the weekend, and have yet to break a single bone. You know what scares me, when I do drive and have to change freeways around here, now that's dangerous!

American roads must be horrendous. Cycling in Berlin (probably 16 km/ day in total), I've never had or seen a bicycle collision (and there are many cyclists).

I have seen numerous car collisions though (into walls, into the back of other cars at lights, into parked cars, etc).

Mostly a consequence of speed - on a bike, you always have reaction time to respond, and the fact of having to pedal means that you're always focussed. The smaller size of the vehicle makes spatial judgement much easier too. Cars whipping around at 50 mph while on the phone/ doing make-up/ after having drunk are probably responsible for most fatalities.

This is indeed an excellent trend -- car infrastructure is stunningly expensive and impractical. California recent spent $75 million to repave 3 miles of the 710 freeway, which could have paid for 1,200 miles of bike lanes. Yikes.

This is indeed an excellent trend -- car infrastructure is stunningly expensive and impractical. California recently spent $75 million to repave 3 miles of the 710 freeway, which could have paid for 1,200 miles of bike lanes. Yikes.

One of the keys to getting more people on bikes in the U.S. just might be electric bikes. Most of the customers that purchase them (at least our brand which is Pedego), would have not likely bought another bike in their lifetime. A little bit of electrical assistance goes a long way on a bike. Europe has recently gone through full scale adoption of them among both cyclists and non-cyclists. Now it's our turn in the U.S.

Electric bikes can be purchased for less than $1,000 at Wal-Mart all the way up to $14,000. Pedego designs and makes quality electric bikes, which average about $2,000 each. You can find them at Tommy Bahama, Hammacher Schlemmer, Frontgate and over 200 quality bicycle shops in the U.S.

Consider the extra health you gain, through having a strong incentive to exercise every day (the electric power is normally a support to peddling - enough to stop you from braking sweat, but you still gain fitness just by balancing and moving the pedals a bit).

Consider the time saved - instead of time lost in commute, is spent in light exercise (think - this counts as time you'd otherwise have had to spend at the gym... or that you'd otherwise have lost from your life entirely through lack of fitness & ill-health).

$2,000 is far more than you need to pay for an electric bike - but $60/ month (i.e. $2/ day) over 3 years is a bargain compared to a car.

$1000 wont cut it. Cities where biking is common like Amsterdam the average bike is worth $50. But there are so many people biking that many have $2000 bikes. Its all about volume. You arent going to build a toll highway around high end cars - you need the Fords.

I ride a Flyer (www.flyer.ch) and am very happy with it indeed. No sweat, even uphill with a week's shopping and a kid in tow, and it's quite a hill. It certainly helps those of us who need to show up at the office looking reasonably professional. The great thing about modern electric bikes is that you can grade the amount of support they give you, from a lot on your morning commute to almost zero during an evening workout. As for the costs - I don't own a car any more. Just do the math.

Slight correction in the article. It mentions that in Europe, "... the proportion of local trips done by bike can be as high as 30%".
It can actually be higher than 50% in some cases. Take for example the Dutch city of Groningen. Just a question of spending on infrastructure, and urban plannning. Achieving the political will to get this to happen however is another story.
At the the end of the day, if you want the masses cycling, it's all about addressing perceptions of safety. If your grandmother thinks she can ride, than you've done something right with bicycle infrastructure.

In Berlin, that's already the case. There are countless young children cycling (often in groups) to Kindergarten.

And there are plenty of cycling grandmothers too (often puffing a cigarette as they cycle, which was a hilarious image when I first saw it).

What's key:
- there must be cycling paths separate from roads - on every major or significant street.
- at T-junctions, cyclists travelling on the major road must always have priority over cars wanting to turn off - and drivers must be in the habit of checking the wing mirror and giving way to cyclists before exiting
- in urban planning, so far as possible, switch to a sparse network of major roads, where the other roads which meet them are minor (i.e. have to give way to the major roads). That allows cycling for long distances without too many junctions to handle (and is also fantastic for pedestrians and making cities more walkable)

Unfortunately, it can also be much lower. Italy, and Rome where I live in particular, has a long way to go to catch up. Less than 1% of trips in Rome are by bike--US levels--and the mortality rate for cyclists and pedestrians is among the worst in the world. Since Italy often copies the US (which is why the love affair with the auto is alive and strong here), we can only hope that the US trend will inspire the eternal city to clean up its act.

Cycling in Germany, I observed that in German towns the road (with a smooth surface) is for the car, the side walk (with many more obstacles) for pedestrians and cyclists. Another German city cycle key should be to allow bikes on the roads where they will not hinder pedestrians anymore.

Just to be clear, cycle lanes are always clearly marked - pink, or with solid white lines.

Sometimes they are on the same guage as the road; sometimes on the same guage as the pavement. It doesn't really matter which (though there are lower cyclist fatality rates where the cycle lanes are on the same guage as sidewalks. What isn't clear is whether that is because of increased reaction time, or because drivers know they have less visability and so are more cautious when turning).

I cycled from Holland to Kassel and in most of the places I passed through, I had to leave the road and cycle on the pavement. The latter having a bumpy surface, pedestrians and for me at each traffic light a lot of bends to make. Being Dutch I am not used to this but, was told to do so twice by an angry looking car-driver. I observed race bikers on the road but it is not common.

My experience cycling long distance in East Germany was much nicer, as was cycling in the cities I've lived in.

Out of interest, where did you experience the most trouble? In the massive Dortmund/ Bochum/ Essen/ Duisburg/ Dusseldorf/ Collogne conurbation, or in the small towns strung between there and Kassel?

And on a side point, I guess everything's relative. The Netherlands and Denmark are the most cycle friendly places on earth. My praise for Germany's cycle-friendly infrastructure comes after experience living mostly in the UK and US. Most cities and states have enormous room for progress in improving conditions for cyclists.

Cycling in Germany is good. I cycled through the rural center south of Munster. In Holland, in case there is no cycle path it is considered as not done to cycle over the pavement; you should stay on the road (which makes sense in terms of speed and the amount of being concerned about other traffic users, which is lowest for pedestrians, especially shoppers). In Germany a cyclist told me they also try to achieve that.

The rules in Germany are very clear and have been for decades: With no bike path cyclists must use the road. They are not allowed on sidewalks. (Except small children.) There are always a few idiots who don't follow the rules but most Germans do.

In Giessen while riding on the side of the road (no bike lane) I was cut off by a car and hit it. No one was hurt but it was pretty scary. The driver didn't check to see if I was OK until I wrote down her license plate number.

I was also grazed once by a car at low speed on a turn (can't remember where it was). The driver was very apologetic and I wasn't hurt.

From my experience, urban cycling in Germany isn't much different from urban cycling in the US.

The car explanation is quite convenient and true to a substantial extent but, North American planners have been a little bit baffled by recent findings that Europeans actually have more cars per capita than Americans, or so says Atlantic cities: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/its-official-we...
We don't have to look to the Europeans ALL the time for progressive planning and local policymaking. Yes the hipsters are polluting the North American urban fabric with their kitschy art and vegan binge eating but there are are reasonable, progressive, humanlike urban planners, architects, community groups, local politicians etc. who are doing pretty cool things across North America.

Western Europe has more cars per capita because of:
- lower income inequality and so higher median incomes in Europe (think outside of your social circles - the tens of millions of recent Hispanic immigrants are on average far poorer than Western Europeans)

- children are a slightly higher proportion of the US population

Nonetheless, Europe does have many cities with very low rates of car ownership. And importantly, Europe has many cities where people keep their cars for the weekend, and do most of their commuting by bike (the US has Portland and San Francisco - but neither rival Copenhagen, Amsterdam or Berlin for cycle, metro & pedestrian friendliness).

Even where car ownership is high, reducing average engine sizes, reducing vehicle sizes, reducing average commuting distances and reducing the proportion of journeys which are completed by car all leave enormous room for progress.

Minneapolis is really getting bike friendly with every passing year. I do not really see Chicago being able to catch up. Chicago is just designed so differently. I don't really think a large bike renting program is sufficient to make people use bicycles. It will end up just like any other greedy, for profit business. Nothing wrong with that, only a better option could have been to provide a subsidy for purchasing bicycles...

This coincides with the trend that for the first time in 100 years, cities in the US are again growing. Bikes really are the best way for people to get around in big cities. It reduces the congestion and pollution. Often times you can get where you want to go faster on a bike than in a car. It's really too bad most US cities aren't built with bike lanes.

The suburb that I live in hardly has any bike path, but it has lots of green areas and people love to ride their bikes in the summer. Most of these are racing bikes or mountain bikes, not street bikes. I think we should start to mandate dedicated bike lanes on every road in America, from the suburb to the cities and all the freeways in between. It's a great way for people to get exercise and cut down pollution. Forget the gym, just ride your bike to work or to the grocery store. Forget the school bus, just let the kids ride their bikes to school. We'd all be much healthier, not just because of the exercise but also due to cleaner air, and it'll get us that much closer to energy independence from the MidEast, tell those rag heads to go scratch!

Part of the cost, inconvenience and heartbreak of biking in the city is bike theft.

Bicycling is the closest thing to flying. It is liberating.

But dealing with security, storage and chain hardware is annoying. It consumes time, forces you to carry a bike to a narrow walkup flat, and slows your trip.
_______________________________

I propose flooding a city a with simple, cheap, steel, one-speed, pink, 'beachcomber' bikes that are free to use.
Ubiquitous that no one would want to steal them.
Bikes kept unlocked and accessible near high traffic areas.
Use a bike. Leave it free for the next user.
Leave it overnight on the sidewalk or bikerack.

Loud pink in color, unflattering and a color that most delinquent men do not want to ride them too long (--less they become gay).
Standardized one size tire, rims, frame and parts.
Everything bought wholesale and in bulk.
Simple enough to be repaired by a 6 year old girl.
Swap parts and make a new bike within 15 minutes.
No electronic GPS tracking or App based reservation system.
No credit card deposit.
No lock.
No storage problem.
Just park it outside on the sidewalk outside your building.
The next person just hops on and is away in moments.
Serviced by a mobile truck with teenage mechanics who work at night.
They can salvage a bike or recycle it for spare parts.
A complete overhaul including new tires takes 15 minutes.
And they can redistribute bikes based on traffic patterns and big social events.

_______________________________

Cities spend $1 million per km for dedicated bike lane infrastructure.
And not a penny is spent on bikes.
But for the price of 3km of bike roadway, a medium sized city can buy up to 50,000 cheap wholesale, low tech, low maintenance bikes imported from China.
I would anticipate unit cost as low as $60.00 per bike. And it would only be one time cost.
Compared this to $500 per bike for the Paris Velib.
No lights. No electronics. No GPS. No NFC. No Apps. No web reservation system.
No fenders. No cup holders. No wicker basket.
No hassle. No cost.
Simple bikes with reflectors, one speed and a fat cushy seat.
And they would populate every corner or bike rack.

Alternatively, a poorer city can just recycle bikes, paint them pink and simplify them with simple one speed gearing. But a standardized rigorous simple bike design would go a long way in reducing maintenance costs.

They could have local placard advertising or have business sponsors who get their names on the frame.

This transit system would cost a fraction of any city Mass transit rail project. Be immediately implemented. Be simple to execute. Impact traffic immediately. Have kids riding the same day. And encourage family activities.

Have it sponsored by a Gates Foundation Grant. It would cost less than a community mosquito eradication project or clean water purification plant. And it would make a greater impact on sclerotic ghetto community.

It is like giving every kid a bike for Christmas.

It is win-win.
_______________________________

Use globalization to devise a green transit project that is sustainable, simple and sensible.
Free bikes makes more sense than free WiFi.

We did the free bike thing here in Portland a few years ago. The bikes were all beaters, painted yellow to distinguish them. They were all stolen in short order.

Paris's experience shows that you have to have a system for physically moving bikes (basically, to the top of hills) for people to keep using them. And you have to maintain them. The French have a floating bike repair shop that chugs up and down the Seine.

I don't understand why you would assert that "cities spend $1M per km for bike infrastructure... and not a penny is spent on bikes". On the contrary, $1M per km is spent on bikes. The biggest reason people don't bike (other than that they're lazy) is not that the bike itself is expensive. It's that they think the roads are dangerous. The best thing a city can do to encourage bike use is to install infrastructure for safe biking.

In London the bike scheme is awesome. Its dirt cheap but since they have your credit card details theft is rare. I have a high end bike but when I am going one way and want to take a cab back (like going to a club) I love using the city bike.

When I lived in a southern state suburb, bike theft was much more of a problem for me than in a northern city. I own two top-rated, very heavy u-locks. One I just keep at work so I don't have to carry it. The other I take with me for other rides errands when I'm not carrying as much stuff. I have a rack on my commuting bike and I just bungee cord the lock to the rack (my bike has a really small frame and there's not enough space to mount a lock, but most people can just mount their locks and it's no problem at all). Locks are heavy, but not much of a hassel. Also a lot of workplaces don't have a problem with just taking your bike inside and leaving it somewhere out of the way.
I've locked my bike all over the city for entire workdays and never had a problem with theft. If you have a good enough U-lock, no one is going to stand there in broad daylight for an hour trying to saw through it. It also helps to park your bike next to someone else's that isn't locked up as well :).

But the minority among older generations who were willing to use or at least tolerate bicycles now find themselves in the majority, when combined with those younger. See the demographics of the anti-bike protest and counter protest in Brooklyn.

In New York this change is ever more apparent, as more and more major avenue lanes are being converted into separated bike lanes. This is good as it's safer for cyclists compared to being on the other side of parked cards, riding alongside traffic. And next year, Citibike (Sponsored by Citibank and NYC) will be making its debut. It's a similar system to the Barclay's Bank bikes in London.
However, I cannot recommend that tourists start biking en-mass in New York just yet. Drivers here are not used to bikers and tend not to pay attention, until they actually hit someone. The streets are still far too dangerous for leisure bikers unless you ride through Central Park and such. Only messenger bikers know how to get around, and even then there's still danger.

I was just riding my bike in NYC this past week as a tourist from Boston. I would signal with my left arm to taxis and buses that were a ways behind me on the street that I needed to move out into their lane so that I could get around an obstacle in my lane. The buses DEFINITELY saw me but they would not slow down to let me move over. They do let you move over to the left lane here in Boston. And this past week a bicyclist was hit and killed by a bus in NYC. I am not surprised!

An 'ecosystem approach' to this issue reveals that other elements can help get people on bikes that are not about bikes. Huh? Car sharing is an example of an enabling element. In my city, Ottawa, Canada, we have a car sharing option called VrtuCar. I book a car that 'lives' about 5 blocks from home, then pay for the time and distance I drove. This enables my family to remain car-free. We use bikes for all the day to day stuff, including through winter, and get the car when necessary. I raise this to illustrate that getting cars off the road can mean retaining some, albeit as part of a different ownership structure, and going car free requires certain elements in play to be viable.

I live in AZ so w. PHX's urban sprawl zip doesn't really work and our public transport is horrible. I could ride 15 miles to work on a bike but when it's 120 out side that's not gonna happen so for me, right now, it's a wish.

Ya' if I lived in Silicon valley with perfect weather and lots of public transit options then yes... I could get rid of the car.